The central legal point established in the judgment is that for passing an order of externment under Madhya Pradesh Surksha Adhiniyam, 1990, both conditions mentioned under section 5(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act must be satisfied, emphasizing the need for close proximity of the offence to the date of the order and the importance of satisfying both conditions for passing an externment order.

ORDER : – The instant petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 6-6-2022 (Annexure-P/1) passed by Commissioner-Ujjain Division, Ujjain whereby dismissing the appeal preferred by petitioner under section 9 of Madhya Pradesh Surksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter refer as “Act”, 1990) whereby the petitioner has been externed from revenue District Ujjain and its adjoining districts for a period of one year.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Ujjain submitted a report on 10th March, 2021 to District Magistrate, Ujjain about the criminal activities of the petitioner. In the report he had given the details of the criminal cases alleged to have been committed by the petitioner from year 2003 to 2021 and had made a request to pass an order of externment against the petitioner under Act, 1990.

3. Based upon the aforesaid report, District Magistrate, Ujjain registered a case on 19-3-2021. A notice was issued to the petitioner under section 8 of the Act, 1990 to show-cause why a proceeding for order of externment should not be initiated against him. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not receive the said show-cause notice. The Collector has recorded in the order that despite service of notice, the petitioner did not appear in the proceedings and therefore, the matter was proceeded ex parte. On the basis of report of Superintendent of Police, Ujjain, the District Magistrate, Ujjain passed an order of externment under section 5(a) and (b) of the Act, 1990 externing the petitioner from District-Ujjain and also adjoining revenue limits of adjacent Districts for a period of one year. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal under section 9 of the Act, 1990 before Commissioner (Revenue). The said appeal was also dismissed by impugned order dated 6-6-2022 affirming the order of externment.

4. Counsel for the petitioner assailed the order of externment on the ground that as per the report of Superintendent of Police, Ujjain 12 cases are registered from year 2003 to 2020 and out of which one proceeding is of preventive against the petitioner. It is submitted that out of 11 cases, 3 cases are of year 2003. One case each of year 2004 and 2005. One case registered in the year 2005. In the said case, the petitioner has already been acquitted. One case is registered in year 2007. All these cases are old and Stale. Further one case is registered under Gambling Act in the year 2014 and 3 cases are registered in the year 2020 and one case under Gambling Act is registered. In the year 2021 preventive proceedings under section 110 of Criminal Procedure Code was instituted against the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from non-service of notice on petitioner, the order of externment has been passed without compliance of the provisions of section 5-B of Act, 1990. It is argued that the District Magistrate has not recorded his satisfaction that the witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public due to apprehension of their safety and therefore, the order of externment is bad in law. In support of his submission, he places reliance of the judgment of Division Bench in the case of Ashok Kumar Patel vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors., reported in 2009(4) M.P.L.J. 434 and also the judgment passed by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Meena Sonkar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors., reported in 2017(2) M.P.L.J. 565 and in the case of Jahangeer Alvi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors., reported in 2017(3) M.P.L.J. 667 and also the judgment in the case of Istfaq Mohammad vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors., reported in 2018(3) M.P.L.J. 349.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/state denied the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the externment order and the appellate order passed on the basis of material available against